Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Appearance of design is equal to; support for design?
Then why not:
No objective verifiable evidence of a God is equal to; support for there not being a God?
What I claim is that the universe appears designed which supports that the universe could possibly be designed.
It remains fine tuned . . .
IF this multiverse system would be true then the fine tuning values would have to be present in that system and it only pushes the fine tuning to another level.
Scientifically that is correct. How much more cohesive is a designer with a universe that appears designed than with a multiverse that needs 10 to the 500th power of universes to give rise to one like ours?
Why not?
One must then deny the values that are appearing fine tuned.
One must then deny the values that are appearing fine tuned.
What is false?
Do these scientists believe the universe is designed? Yes or no?
If no, what does that tell you?
In order to deny fine tuning in a lottery, do we have to deny the lottery numbers?
That the fine tuning is meaningless. They understand that these values are not just from chance . . .
It tells me several things. It tells me that they understand that the design in the universe might have possibility if the multiverse system could be shown to be true and the meta-laws shown to be possible in a naturalistic way. It tells me that with any evidence or data that subjective conclusions can be drawn from them. Both for me and the scientists.
Your misunderstanding is showing.
That the fine tuning is meaningless. They understand that these values are not just from chance there are too many and too many are independent of the others.
Nope.
Appearance of design = support of design in your mind.
So:
No objective verifiable evidence of a God = support for there not being a God.
No denial necessary, because no objective evidence exists, that points to a God.
Appearance of design = support of design
The evidence for the appearance of design are the values that have to be almost exactly the way they are for life to exist and that type of universe is exceedingly rare if not almost impossible without the possibility of an exceedingly great number of universes available to give rise to this universe. IF that is shown, it then must be shown how the meta-laws required were possible as well.
I know. So, here is the question you got stumped on in that thread, from May of 2011:Don't expect me to.
I never claimed that they used the word "bunnies", but they do refer to the anthropic principle, which is the same thing.Provide the quotes where the scientists claim it is all their imagination and seeing bunnies.
<looks for this alleged substantiation - sees none>My position is a well substantiated one that the consensus of scientists agree upon.
In order to be support, design would need to be testable and falsifiable which it isn't. What you have is a dogmatic religious belief that is impervious to evidence and reason.
Fine tuning implies a tuner. No tuner, no tuning. Can you name the outcome of any other random or chance process that is described as being fine tuned? Do we describe the outcome of a lottery as being fine tuned for the winner?
Wouldn't this also be true for a designer?
Where did the universe that produced the designer come from?
Using your posts as an example, my answer is "Because". That seems to be the kind of vague, non-answer that you prefer.
No more so than appearance of rainbows = support for leprechauns.
Afterall, if leprechauns really do make rainbows, then rainbows are support for leprechauns. That is your argument in a nutshell.
But you don't have to show that the universe was designed? You just claim it, and refuse to provide evidence?
The perceived fine tuning, to be clear.
...and admit that it could simply look that way (the anthropic principle).I have provided numerous names of scientists that agree that the universe is fine tuned in just the right way for life to exist.
So much for a universe tuned for life. Beyond a tiny bit of "life" that clings to the surface of this planet, what else have we found?
As life forms that create and design we recognize the appearance of design.
We can know what constitutes the presence of design.
You deny what scientists are claiming due to your dogmatic belief that God doesn't exist.
You ignore what even atheist scientists claim about the fine tuning.
If you were true to your own worldview you would not deny the evidence . . .
Fine tuning was not a term that I employed. It is the term that the scientists (non-religious ones too) labeled the phenomena to describe their findings.
Why would it?
God is outside the natural world. He is not subject to the laws of cause and effect.
Prove that I have ever said "because" for an answer.
Do these scientists have access to other universes? No? Then they do not know that they might have been different.Scientists say that they know what the consequences would be if they were tuned differently and they do know that they could be different.
It would appear that you often conflate "fine tuning therefore life" with "the constants we observe are constant therefore life".Ok. Your point?
You admitted a few posts ago that "design" (fine tuning) was unfalsifiable. It can still be a question in science, but it is of no significance without evidence.Scientists continue to look for explanations for the fine tuning problem and feel that it is a valid question in Science. You have the right to deny that if you wish.
Oh no, you are left with only mockery now? When all else fails I guess.
I've not claimed there is evidence that the universe is designed.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?